IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v4y2007i1p103-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Geographic Variation in Informed Consent Law: Two Standards for Disclosure of Treatment Risks

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Studdert
  • Michelle M. Mello
  • Marin K. Levy
  • Russell L. Gruen
  • Edward J. Dunn
  • E. John Orav
  • Troyen A. Brennan

Abstract

We analyzed 714 jury verdicts in informed consent cases tried in 25 states in 1985–2002 to determine whether the applicable standard of care (“patient” vs. “professional” standard) affected the outcome. Verdicts for plaintiffs were significantly more frequent in states with a patient standard than in states with a professional standard (27 percent vs. 17 percent, P = 0.02). This difference in outcomes did not hold for other types of medical malpractice litigation (36 percent vs. 37 percent, P = 0.8). The multivariate odds of a plaintiff's verdict were more than twice as high in states with a patient standard than in states with a professional standard (odds ratio = 2.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.32–3.50). The law's expectations of clinicians with respect to risk disclosure appear to vary geographically.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Studdert & Michelle M. Mello & Marin K. Levy & Russell L. Gruen & Edward J. Dunn & E. John Orav & Troyen A. Brennan, 2007. "Geographic Variation in Informed Consent Law: Two Standards for Disclosure of Treatment Risks," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 103-124, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:4:y:2007:i:1:p:103-124
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00083.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00083.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00083.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:4:y:2007:i:1:p:103-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.